(For previous correspondence, please see here.)
Dear Robert Bachelor,
We acknowledge receipt of your message of Tuesday 19th September. Thank you for acknowledging that our questions are a matter for legitimate public interest and concern and that they fall under Freedom of Information (FOI) requirements, which stipulate a reply within 20 working days. I was particularly alarmed by your statement that "it is also possible that the timeframe may need to be extended, dependent on the availability of the information required to answer your queries”.
I hope this is simply a formula you are legally required to place in your reply to any query, and is not an indication that the information we ask for is not readily available to you, and that you are going to proceed with vaccinating thousands of school-aged children in Kirklees without being fully furnished with all critical facts relating to this vaccine.
We asked you, as a provider of medical interventions to children, to supply some basic information about those interventions, in order to demonstrate that you as a provider are sufficiently educated on the products you administer to enable you to fulfil your duties of soliciting from families their fully informed consent.
This surely requires that you have this information at your fingertips, for if you did not, it would mean that you are not currently in possession of sufficient information to enable you to provide fully informed consent for vaccination - and therefore, you should not be administering vaccinations to anyone, much less children - and may well be flouting the law if you do.
Please note that The Guardian newspaper reported in 2014 that there was insufficient evidence to support the use of the flu nasal spray, and that this spray did not have any significant impact on reducing hospitalisations or deaths in children. The newspaper quoted experts advising parents not to administer this vaccination to their children, and said, "influenza vaccines are about marketing and not science". The only thing to have changed since that time is that the vaccination components have been "tweaked" - but there remains no evidence that this spray will overall have a positive effect on children's health, nor that the benefits outweigh the risks, as we alluded to in the five questions we put to you. To reiterate, the questions we have asked you are: 1. What is the absolute (not relative) risk reduction of the flu spray? 2. How many children has the new reformulated Fluenz Tetra spray been tested on? 3. How long were these children studied for? 4. Was the vaccine tested in clinical trials against an inert saline placebo, or non-inert substances containing biologically active ingredients? 5. What controls have been put in place to mitigate the possibility of the live flu nasal spray prompting antibody dependent enhancement - ADE - in children who may have developed this syndrome from the COVID-19 vaccines that many school-aged children have received? If your teams cannot answer these questions before administering vaccination, then they should not be administering vaccination, as per the terms of the Montgomery ruling by which they are bound. We will continue to monitor this situation closely and if - as we anticipate and have cautioned is highly likely - there is a sudden increase of illness in children in the weeks and months directly following the administration of the flu spray, we shall be in touch with you again. Yours faithfully,
Informed Consent Matters
Thanks for reading. Informed Consent Matters is a completely independent health resource with no corporate or pharmaceutical funding, meaning your support is what powers this resource to keep going.
If you would like to support our work, please consider:
Making a purchase from our awareness-raising shop or;
Thank you for your invaluable support in spreading the vital message that informed consent really does matter.